October 21, 2004

this is really bizarre…

zzzhhhccc03.jpg
[UPDATE: Don’t even ask…]


Can some­body explain this to me? I’ve been quo­ted saying:

“Blogs build mar­ket momen­tum and get adop­tion. Ask Buzz Brug­ge­man, CEO of Acti­ve­Words, about this one. He’s got­ten world-class reviews in the news­pa­pers you all love and know (just a week or so ago Acti­ve­Words was in the New York Times). But he gets more down­loads of his pro­duct when I lin­ked to him than when a famous “USA” news­pa­per wrote a glo­wing review. They have millions of rea­ders. What am I mis­sing here? Yet I’ve had pro­duct mana­gers for pro­ducts that make billions every year tell me that they’ll just adver­tise in natio­nal news­pa­pers and get the same “kick” that blogs will get them. (They look at my puny 4,000 rea­ders per day and laugh. Keep laughing, but do your home­work and ask Buzz about his expe­rien­ces — he’s not the only one who’s noti­ced this. Ask Nokia (or, even the mar­ke­ters at Mic­ro­soft) about how impor­tant a good link on Engad­get is).”

This excerpt only shows up in the RSS feed of the article — pre­su­mably it has been edi­ted out of the web­page ver­sion of the post…too bad — Hugh hac­ked out the most com­pe­lling part — read it again: gaping­void is bet­ter mar­ke­ting vehicle than USA Today because of the trust rela­tionship that Hugh has with his readers.

Errrrmmmm.… I wrote no such thing. Nor is it in the post on gaping­void it links to.…
Some­body is trying to gene­rate faux publicty via gaping­void. Truly biza­rre.
Well, I just blog­ged it, so I guess they’re get­ting their wish. Yes, I see the irony. Heh.
[UPDATE:] Heh. False Alarm. It was me quo­ting Robert Sco­ble, and Car­los thought he was quo­ting me. That is all. Indeed, the part he quo­ted was on my web­site for a time, but then I dele­ted part of it to make folk go read it it on Scoble’s blog, rather than just read the whole thing on mine.
And because I was rea­ding it out of con­text I didn’t recog­nise it as part of that lar­ger Sco­ble piece. My mis­take. Mea Culpa.
Eh. Been wor­king hard this last week. My brain’s kinda fried so I guess it’s not sur­pri­sing these things hap­pen.
Any­way if you haven’t yet read the Sco­ble piece “Are you afraind to blog?” please go do so. It’s a good one.

13 Responses to “this is really bizarre…”

  1. Brian Field says:

    This is from a Sco­ble article. I can’t recall if it’s the same article you lin­ked to (Are you afraid to blog?) or if it was one of the other pie­ces on his blog page that day. I guess some peo­ple assume that everything you link to is your work…

  2. Eric says:

    Hugh,
    It looks as if a quote of Sco­ble was mis­ta­kenly attri­bu­ted to you:
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2004/10/19.html#a8431
    Scroll down to Scoble’s obser­va­tion #6 and you’ll see it.

  3. Carlos says:

    This did appear in the RSS feed for your “are you afraid to blog” article. I dis­tinctly remem­ber it because I’d already skim­med through it on Scoble’s blog, but when you wrote “If you don’t get it”… I made a point of rea­ding it again on your blog.

  4. hugh macleod says:

    Hmmm.… wha­te­ver. Doesn’t sound like that big a deal. I thought at first it could be something more weird than that.
    This is what hap­pens when you read everything through an RSS rea­der. You miss things. Arrrgh.

  5. Ben Wharton says:

    Worse than being mis-quoted/mis-blogged is the qua­lity of Hugh’s recent cards. Bad stand-up comedy (crude, no laughs, no incite) I can go for elsewhere.
    Perhaps the real Hugh has been kid­nap­ped and an impos­ter has taken con­trol of his Blog.
    Is this the new crime of the post-brand mar­ke­ting age?

  6. hugh macleod says:

    Sorry Ben. I must try har­der ;-)

  7. Ben Wharton says:

    Nah, I think in the spi­rit of the ori­gi­nal author, I think we should let the mar­ket decide. {}:_)*(

  8. hugh macleod says:

    Yay! Mar­kets making decisions!

  9. cynthia says:

    if you’ve been rea­ding hugh’s blog long enough you know that the latest car­toons are a return to form, not a new direc­tion. hugh’s audience is not only divi­ded, but pola­ri­zed. some of us love the dark comedy and get bored and drift away with the branding/marketing stuff. but we pop up again when he brings it back. a psycho­logy the­sis could be writ­ten about how we all reveal our­sel­ves based on which posts we choose to com­ment on.

  10. Ben Wharton says:

    Why anyone com­ments about anything is not worth a the­sis — we either approve/disaprove/want to score points/want to add to a discussion/are bored/want to jack off/fancy the per­son we’re con­ver­sing with/hate the per­son we’re con­ver­sing with/need to sup­port them because they’re sup­por­ting us/need to des­troy them because they’re stop­ping us sup­por­ting our­se­le­ves or our loved ones or emplo­yeed ones/we’re trying to sell something/we’re trying to buy something/we like tal­king to strangers/we like the look of our words in print or on the web/we’re lonely/we want to make a friend/we want to improve our (cho­sen language)/the per­son has touched something that’s been bothe­ring us and now we need to bother other peo­ple about it to help us to think more clearly about our emo­tio­nal state.
    There’s a few more, but nothing worth 50,000 words —  or three let­ters.
    I guess I haven’t been part of Hugh’s audience for long enough. A return to form? I love Dark comedy — that was two weeks ago or the­rea­bouts.
    This is, well, bit­ter. That seems about right.

  11. cynthia says:

    are you taking my hyper­bo­lic sta­te­ment lite­rally or is that inten­ded to be humor?

  12. Ben Wharton says:

    Totally straight. I obviously have deep issues with hyper­bole. [I am smi­ling at this point — but of course, in all serious­ness]
    Reminds me of an old epi­sode of Star Trek.

  13. Hey…I thought it was a great piece! Thanks for run­ning it. And, I would be remiss in not sug­ges­ting that I would be happy to give you a copy of Acti­ve­Words. Blogs rock! Many days half of our down­loads come because of peo­ple blog­ging about us.